It's started

begreen Posted By begreen, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:59 AM

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WoodyIsGoody

    WoodyIsGoody
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 16, 2017
    1,437
    582
    Loc:
    Pacific NW Washington
    Elon Musk has confirmed the Tesla Model 3 will be available with a hitch for light towing. Electric cars tow very well as long as range isn't an issue. That's due to the naturally high torque of electric motors and the weight of the batteries which also lowers the center of gravity. If you want to do more than local towing with the Model 3 you should get the 315 mile range package (which is the only configuration available for the first few months of production). The weight of the extra batteries and stiffer springs will provide even more trailer control. For these reasons (weight, torque, center of gravity), electric vehicles tow as well as vehicles a class or two bigger.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  2. begreen

    begreen
    Mooderator 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    77,235
    12,533
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Heard on the radio that if you placed an order for a Tesla model 3 today, that it would be delivered at the end of next year.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. woodgeek

    woodgeek
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 27, 2008
    4,141
    874
    Loc:
    SE PA
    Nice to hear @WoodyIsGoody. I figured that Jim did not want a Tesla....perhaps he does?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  4. pdf27

    pdf27
    Burning Hunk 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 14, 2012
    185
    34
    Loc:
    UK
    One possible thought - what is the cheapest second-hand electric car you can get your paws on locally? For instance near me I can get a 24 kWh Leaf for as little as £4k ($5200). As a relatively cheap car you don't care very much if it's left outside, and provided you have a charging cable to it then the internal heater should ensure that the cold isn't a major problem (although power consumption in the cold might be!). It doesn't meet the towing or long distance trip requirements, but I'd bet that it's enough to cover a big chunk of your annual mileage anyway, and you already have an acceptable (and cheap since they're already paid for) solution to those problems. The concern is that two new cars - particularly as you have potentially quite stringent requirements for them - is going to be very expensive for the benefit you get from them.

    The other question is how well your current heating system fits your intermediate and longer term requirements - if I had a lot of electrical power surplus then I'd at least be thinking about my HVAC/hot water requirements, possibly combined with insulation depending on the current state. Obviously if wood heat is a hobby and you aren't finding it hard work at all then there is no reason to change, but if I had sufficient cash to replace two older cars with new ones and 4.5 MWh of electricity available per year that's the way I'd be leaning. With modern heat pump systems that would probably give you 20-25 MWh of heat per year (70-85 MMBtu - equivalent to about 3 cords of wood) and a significant amount more free time.
     
  5. WoodyIsGoody

    WoodyIsGoody
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 16, 2017
    1,437
    582
    Loc:
    Pacific NW Washington
    That's the current projection, there's a lot of pent up demand for a car like this. My wife placed an order about 30-45 minutes into the Model 3 unveiling back in March and, if she decides to take the first configuration offered, the expected delivery time is this December or January. The end of next year delivery time for current orders is based upon the over half million existing pre-orders. However, the deposit is only $1000 and is completely refundable so I imagine a lot of people who pre-ordered will not follow through. The economy could collapse, war could break out, or other manufacturers could have new offerings just as enticing. If that happens, and production ramp-up goes off without major disruptions, the timeframe could be considerably sooner.

    It doesn't cost much (just the interest/time value of $1000) to be on the list so, if you think a car like this is a good fit, it makes sense to get a place. You can always cancel when your spot becomes available.

    All of the early deliveries will be 315 mile RWD versions. Interestingly enough, the AWD versions are said to have slightly better range with identical batteries. It has to do with the tread on the drive wheels not being loaded so much (since all four tires are sharing the load). On the other hand, Elon Musk has said the RWD version will have very good traction on snow/ice. This is due partly to the perfect weight distribution but mostly due to the ability to make nearly instantaneous torque adjustments to the drive wheels. It's amazing that a car in this price range can do 0-60 in 5.6 seconds and handle like it's on rails with virtually no body roll.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. jebatty

    jebatty
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 1, 2008
    5,685
    914
    Loc:
    Northern MN
    Have given thought and action to these things. In our area of MN, HDD are around 9000. We heat our house on average with 4 cords of aspen each year. A min-split probably could reduce our wood usage by 50%, leaving wood for the below 0F periods, and if and when my age gets the best of me, this clearly is an option. DHW is electric at a cost of about $7/month (100+/- kWh). Not much more to be done here. No more insulation or other energy updates are reasonable with our house.

    Except for gasoline engines, we already are 100%+ fossil carbon free, so that leaves the gasoline engines as the target for carbon reduction. Mileage reduction could be a target, and we have tried, but living in a rural area with the nearest town (248 pop) being 12 miles away, and the nearest small city 42 miles away, plus children and grand-children 185 miles away (average about two trips/month), as well as my wife and I being very active in volunteer opportunities which require multiple round trips each week for each of us in the 20 - 60 mile range, significant mileage reduction would require a drastic change in living enjoyment and quality.

    Therefore, our focus now is on an electric car which could meet most of our driving needs, except long road trips/camping (1-2/year).
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  7. WoodyIsGoody

    WoodyIsGoody
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 16, 2017
    1,437
    582
    Loc:
    Pacific NW Washington
    While the modern Inverter powered heat pumps have come a long ways in terms of cold climate efficiency, most demand for heat comes during the coldest weather where heat pumps are more efficient than resistive heating by a factor of 2.5-4.0 instead of the 4.4-5.5 factor that your numbers assume. Of course the exact efficiency of converting kWh's into Btu's depends upon your climate and how you use your heat pump.

    In my experience, heat pumps are the ideal compliment to wood heat vs. replacement for wood heat.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  8. pdf27

    pdf27
    Burning Hunk 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 14, 2012
    185
    34
    Loc:
    UK
    Fair enough - sounds like there is nothing more to be done here for some years.

    Thing is, most of that can be accomplished by a car with a reliable range of 85 miles or more - it's only the trips to the children/grandchildren which require more, and that's only ~4500 miles/year. Hence the questioning as to whether the cheap option might work well for you.

    The other thing to consider is that electricity going back to the grid has a negative carbon value - i.e. it displaces dirty electricity that would otherwise be generated. That will depend a lot on the fuel mix where you are - around where I am it's basically 100% gas, so 490 g/kWh. A Nissan Leaf is rated at 34 kWh/100 miles, so the effective emissions for me would be ~17kg of CO2 per 100 miles - 170 g per mile or ~100g/km. That's about as good as the best petrol cars (my main car is rated at about 120g/km), but a lot depends on your trip structure: I do a lot of short trips at the moment for which an electric car would be great.

    So if your power is mostly from gas then the benefit would be in the region of 20 g/km (30g/mile), and if it's from coal then you're better off exporting power to the grid and burning gasoline for transport.
     
  9. jebatty

    jebatty
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 1, 2008
    5,685
    914
    Loc:
    Northern MN
    Haven't considered this. Our main electric energy supplier is via Great River Energy, heavily coal dependent. Macro vs micro fossil carbon reduction at issue here, complemented by a personal desire to be fossil carbon free.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. woodgeek

    woodgeek
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 27, 2008
    4,141
    874
    Loc:
    SE PA
    Hmmm. If I am driving a gasser that gets 25 miles per gallon, that is 4 gallons per 100 miles, 2.5 gallons per 100 km. If 80 gallons = 1 ton CO2, then this is 2.5/80 * 1000 = 31 kg CO2/100 km, or 310g/km.

    per kWh in a LEAF, is 3.2 miles/kWh, or 3.2*1.6 = 5.12 km/kWh, or 300*5.12 = 1500 g/kWh, which is well above the US grid average.

    The net says that the MN grid was 1588 g/kWh in 2007, and closer to 1040 g/kWh in 2015.

    If he is replacing a vehicle getting less than about 35 mpg, it makes more sense to put it into an EV. I would think the avalon/camry would be getting mid 20s. As the grid continues to get cleaner....this keeps making more sense.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  11. pdf27

    pdf27
    Burning Hunk 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 14, 2012
    185
    34
    Loc:
    UK
    Petrol is 2.3 kg CO2/litre and a US gallon is 3.785 litres, so a gallon releases 8.7 kg of CO2 - at 25 MPG I make that more like 350 g/mile and 220 g/km. I can't quite work out why that disagrees with your numbers - where did you get the 80 gallons/1 ton CO2 from? EIA states 20 lbs/gallon, so 80 gallons would be 1600 lbs - which about matches my figures.
    At 0.34 kWh per mile for a Leaf (34 kWh for 100 miles rated for a 2012 model Leaf), at 350 g/mile for the petrol equivalent then that means the g/kWh break-even point for electricity is pretty much bang on 1000 g/kWh - which is the emissions of an average coal fired power station.

    The critical number here isn't the average generation value but the value of the marginal plant on the grid - i.e. because charging an electric car adds load to the grid, additional plant will potentially be added to the grid. Since zero-carbon sources like wind or nuclear will run no matter what the load is (the fuel is essentially free), taking an average will be rather misleading and make an electric car appear to be cleaner than it actually is. If your generation is heavily coal-based then I suspect that you'd have a bigger impact spending the same $$$$$ on additional PV than you would on replacing a gasoline powered car with an electric one: coal really is a filthy fuel and getting it off the grid really does need to be the first priority.
     
  12. woodgeek

    woodgeek
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 27, 2008
    4,141
    874
    Loc:
    SE PA
    I got the 80 gal/MT CO2 into my head many years ago. It may include some production carbon beyond the product itself. Sorry.

    In the US, the marginal production (during the daytime/summer peaks) is almost always natural gas (the gas plants are more modern, have cheap fuel, and are easier to throttle). In my experience, coal in the US is, usually, more like 1.5 kg/kWh, and gas is a third of that. So, I think that further favors sending the excess PV kWh to the electric car rather than sending it into the MN grid.

    You bring up a secondary question of should he spend a $ on more PV to send to the grid or to buy/lease and EV? This is a much more complex question. Should he take ALL of his excess cash, install tons of PV all over his property, be massively carbon negative, and then drive around in a Hummer? I don't think that was what he was asking. The PV incentives in the US are for production up to your seasonal average usage, and Jim has made his peace with the bond-like returns and reasonable risks of payback of his PV investment. But as soon as his production exceeds his usage, that calculation changes a lot....rather than making a modest return, the PV just costs.

    Conversely, I would say that a cheap EV can have a lower total cost of ownership than the type of ICE cars he is currently driving, when incentives, energy costs and maintenance are taken into account. So using his 'free' excess PV kWh to power a suitable EV can also 'pay' relative to ICE.

    As for the low-cost 'used' LEAF, idea, it is not clear it suits his needs. He can get a 107 mile range, 2017 LEAF for $2500/year under lease, or pay $10-12k for a used leaf that might have a 80 mile (and falling) current range, and which might cost nearly as much as the 2017 model lease if he tried to sell the used LEAF in 3-4 years with a very small residual resale on a 7-8 yo LEAF. But even the 107 mile LEAF really might not suit their use case. I don't know your familiarity with rural MN (I had a GF with parents up there). When Jim says he needs a 200 mile EV range to substitute many of his miles, I believe it, especially when 3 mos of the year that range will be decreased by cold by a 40% factor. He could get a 107 mile EV as a third car, and squeeze as much use onto it as possible....if he and his wife are interested in being EV achievers. If he wants a car he can just use for a lot of stuff year round, the constant trip/distance juggling of a short range Gen 1 EV might not be a good fit or to his taste.

    I was going to try to talk him into a 165 mile range 2018 LEAF.... ;em
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  13. CaptSpiff

    CaptSpiff
    Feeling the Heat 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 13, 2014
    406
    105
    Loc:
    Long Island, NY
    Just a nit to pick: I have been told that Wind Production is frequently "curtailed" during the overnight hours by the NYISO due to congestion and general "overgen". So load shifting to the overnight, as in EV charging, could directly improve production from zero-carbon sources.

    Overgen occurs when steam boiler type power stations are ramped down to their absolute minimum permitted, yet the combined output of them all is still more than desired in the NYISO control area..
     
    woodgeek likes this.
  14. pdf27

    pdf27
    Burning Hunk 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 14, 2012
    185
    34
    Loc:
    UK
    If correct, yes - essentially 1000g/kWh is the break-even point so gas generated electricity would have half the emissions of a petrol car.
    It's worth digging up the raw data if you can though - not sure if it's available in the US, but the UK has somewhere like http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk which provides live and historic data. Interestingly there have been periods in the UK when gas was running at base load and coal provided all the peaking power, and vice-versa (currently there is virtually no coal left on the UK grid).

    I think the core of it was what is he trying to achieve - if it's CO2 reduction then PV, investing in wind energy companies, etc. may achieve more than an electric car. If it's replace an existing car that has reached the end of life or he just wants to change then the economics are very different.

    There is a return on investment, but the capital costs of replacing two older cars with two new ones are rather high - hence the questions as to whether there are other ways to solve the same problem.

    Ouch. Those prices are hideously expenisve - the same car around where I live is about $5,000 not $12,000, which kills the idea.

    I've never been to MN - I live in England, although my wife is from NJ so we're out there a fair bit.
    If you look at his stated driving though, it isn't clear that he actually needs such a big range - most of the journeys seem to be in the 20-60 mile range, with occasional 85 mile trips to a small city and twice monthly 370 mile round trips to children/grandchildren. If the latter trip is assumed to be impractical for a battery car at this point, then it appears that the majority of round trips are under 60 miles - maybe a problem for an early Leaf in winter (particularly given heating demand), but otherwise fine.
    Ultimately I suspect it comes down to price - with the numbers you're quoting it appears you'd be mad to buy an older electric car given the low lease prices on new ones and the absurdly high price of a used one. From the look of it most mileage could be substituted with an electric car with even a very small battery, however.
     
    woodgeek likes this.
  15. jebatty

    jebatty
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 1, 2008
    5,685
    914
    Loc:
    Northern MN
    This discussion and the resulting complexity of an otherwise somewhat superficially easy decision is very informative.

    Without a lot of thought I would say that our primary goal has been to simply produce enough PV energy, directly used plus grid fed, to erase the equivalent fossil carbon footprint of our household energy usage. We now are doing that, except for gasoline usage. An EV would move us closer to achieving this goal. We will have to rethink whether our primary goal should remain as is or be shifted more to a grid impact focus.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    WoodyIsGoody likes this.
  16. pdf27

    pdf27
    Burning Hunk 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 14, 2012
    185
    34
    Loc:
    UK
    The thing is so far you've had a relatively straightforward route to reducing emissions:
    • Use of wood fuel for heating, eliminating fossil fuels.
    • Use of PV to provide electricity, with a small surplus over and above your annual consumption.
    Both are pretty mainstream, and for a reason - they're relatively straightforward to do, and use known technology. Electric mobility is rather harder - the IC engine has been heavily optimised for 100 years and is pretty good at what it does, while batteries are only recently reaching the energy densities at which a battery electric car is practicable and this is happening at a time when electricity grids around the world are making a rapid shift from coal to gas plus renewables (UK grid average carbon intensity has pretty much halved in the past 5 years, for instance).

    Ultimately I suspect the question is one of direct impact versus indirect impact, and indeed how far you're interested in pushing things.
    • If you're concerned about direct impact then an electric car plus a bit more PV is the obvious answer - with possibly more attention paid to food miles and the like as an additional point of interest.
    • If indirect impact is the target then the question becomes so complex as to be almost unanswerable, particularly when the financials come into it. To use an example from above, for the same budget more PV and keeping the existing cars would probably have a better net carbon impact than switching to electric cars - but from your point of view the economics would be pretty hopeless since any excess net power has virtually zero value to you.
    For the specific question of whether replacing your current cars with new ones would be a good thing, I suspect the answer is that it would be a small net benefit at the moment and gradually increase in value over time. Given what you've said so far in the thread about your current cars and how fast electric cars are improving, then unless you want to change your cars now then I'd personally hang on until one of your cars starts dying/getting expensive to maintain and then make the switch to 1 x IC/1 x electric car.
    Because two new cars are involved then I would personally struggle to justify the large capital expense, but that's a very personal thing (the newest car I've ever bought had 90,000 miles on the clock, and the only one I've ever got rid of had 250,000 and major mechanical problems).
     
    woodgeek likes this.
  17. woodgeek

    woodgeek
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 27, 2008
    4,141
    874
    Loc:
    SE PA
    This and recent discussions have also altered my thinking a bit.

    Previously, I have been excited by the emergence of lower carbon solutions to provide the energy services my family needs, and have happily been an early adopter of same. Often, it has been possible to argue that the lower carbon solution is zero or negative cost with respect to 'business as usual'. The exciting thing about the latter, is what it portends for mass adoption....many people will happily adopt such a climate friendly solution with a little, um, advocacy and education.

    My point HERE is that these solutions do not always work out to be zero/negative cost, AND that my current thinking is that that may be a obsolete standard (for me) to apply to such solutions.

    Some examples:
    (1) Airsealing and insulation work on my 1960 house, originally with oil-heat at 1100 gallons/year. Reduced heating and cooling BTU requirements by ~50%. I got the first 30-35% myself DIY, at minimal material cost. But in retrospect, this was really a time-sucking distraction for several years of my life, that I might have put some of that energy into my family and career. Probably better than going to a casino or playing video games, I guess, but not 'cost free'. I then had additional (harder) work done by pros, for a few $k, on a 0% loan (as a mid-career saver, I worry about time value of money). CO2 savings are 6 tons per year. Energy savings are $1500/year, higher when oil was higher. Lets call it negative $ cost per ton carbon, but a BIG cost in the PITA factor.

    (2) Switching my HVAC supply from oil/window ACs to central ASHP. Project cost was a $4k more than just getting central AC (which I would have done anyway), but in retrospect, heavy loads on current ASHPs in my climate probably require replacement every 7-12 years, incurring an additional operating and PITA cost. Running on local PA renewable power, I save another 7 tons CO2/yr, at an energy equivalent cost of $2.50/gallon oil. Factoring in hardware wear-out costs (hattip to @Highbeam) can be $500-750 per year adjusts that operating cost to $3.50-$4.00 /gallon heating oil, above my market costs for all but a few purchases in the last 10 years. So in the end, my cost is probably close to $100/ton.

    (3) I don't do solar on my super shady site, and I have shamefully trolled @jebatty several times on PV returns. Simple payback on PV can be 7-10 years, I gather, for recent projects, which sounds like a 10-15% ROI, negative cost net investment. But, in my opinion, this is erroneous, since there is no principle return a 7 year simple payback (15% return) has zero ROI over the simple payback period, and returns 100% above investment after **two** simple payback periods, so would be like a 7.5% simple return after 15 years. For a 10 year simple payback, the simple return might be 5% ROI after 20 years. Because of the time value of money however, the 'rule of 72' would suggest that the 7 year return is like a 5% CAGR over 14 years, and the 10 year simple return is a 3.5% CAGR return over 20 years. It is easy to argue the same money index invested would have much higher returns. So while PV might save 5 tons /year, the cost is not really negative, but instead closer to zero or positive depending on one's investing ability/habits. In practice, changes to the net-metering environment seem likely on the 14-20 year horizon, which may degrade even this meager return...hard to predict. But if you end up a sevaral $thou in the hole in a NPV sense worst case, on 50-100 tons CO2 total savings, you are probably costing $50-100/ton saved.

    (4) For the cheap Gen 1 EV case, I made a spreadsheet during the expensive gas era that figured I got a new car for $50/mo, relative to a beater it replaced, and would save about 4 tons CO2/yr. It looked like a negative cost. As it happened, gas got cheap, wiping out $50/month of my savings. And higher insurance was close to another $50-75/month. In retrospect, however, I needed to replace the beater anyway, and could have leased a similarly functional Altima for a similar operating cost (since I would have put more miles on the Altima too). So, in the end, the cost difference is in the weeds, maybe $0 per ton, but with lots of uncertainty (mostly positive cost) about other cheaper car options I might have taken (like buying a cheap hybrid, rather than leasing a mid-range conventional). Could easily be $50-100/ton CO2.

    So am I a pessimist now....nope. But I am thinking that I am done advocating that all these solutions are 'easy' and negative/zero cost. (I think that HPWHs and LED bulbs are still there...just do those ;hm)!

    Do I have regret, definitely NOT. Each of these technologies above has gone through remarkable changes in the last 10 years, mostly in terms of increasing availability and much lower costs. These ARE all early adopter technology (including the home airsealing stuff....most have not done that work to the current state of the art). And the changes we see have been wrought by our choice to be early adopters (and advocates to others). Mass adoption (in the future) will benefit and ultimately be enabled by what we have done in the last 10 years.

    We as early adopters are remaking the energy systems in our country, just in time to do a lot of good. And that is not reflected in our cost per ton above.

    But its not enough. At the end of the day, an 'all of the above' strategy gets about 50% CO2 reduction. Per the scary New York Magazine article (and my recent 4 ton CO2 business trip to asia) it all seems kinda inadequate and lame.

    In summary...if you want to be zero carbon....go buy some effin' offsets. They are EASY and only cost $10/ton. Figure out what you emit as a family, and buy them. Done, you are now a 'zero-carbon family'. Got a little more money, offset your neighbors too.

    https://www.terrapass.com/product/individuals-families

    If its good enough for Al Gore...its good enough for you! :p

    But that aside....why do I do it? Is it about saving pennies (or more often the case, not)? Is it about saving the world (it doesn't). Nope, its about being the change you want to see in the world. And that's all.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    sloeffle, begreen and Ashful like this.
  18. jharkin

    jharkin
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Oct 21, 2009
    3,886
    1,339
    Loc:
    Holliston, MA USA
    Very well said 'Geek. With all you thinking about finance maybe you should come on over and join us at bogleheads. You can discuss these topics till you are blue in your face and learn a lot too :)


    Anyway, great insights and do NOT feel bad about all that. Its human nature and I do the same. These issues are not black and white.

    - I think how great it would be to install solar but I dont because I dont want to see panels on my historic house.

    - I think that it would be better for the enviornment for me to buy an ultra efficienct hybrid commuter car... but I dont becuase I already have the sunk cost of the truck and I stil need the truck for weekend chores and the impact of buying a second vehicle will far offset the efficiency/cost savings.

    - I jumped on the LED ligthing bandwagon early and am probably not going to see an ROI on what I spent since better tech will come along before I hit payback. I really should have held out for hte bulbs to drop to $2 in retrospect.

    - Im heating less and less with wood as time goes on because natgas is so cheap and my work/family life is so hectric that I find it hard to justify the time investment.

    life happens. we all do our best. Cheers.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    begreen and woodgeek like this.
  19. kennyp2339

    kennyp2339
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 16, 2014
    4,314
    2,119
    Loc:
    07462
    I enjoy reading these threads, for one, its very educating for me, and it helps me decide how far I can go on my own money with weighing in on the pro's and con's.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  20. jebatty

    jebatty
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 1, 2008
    5,685
    914
    Loc:
    Northern MN
    From many perspectives some would say, and based on their rationale, I could agree that I should have waited before doing one thing or another. Famously fitting the "wait" argument is in computers, electronics and phones. Yet, I have no regrets. My early adoption of a PC in January 1981 opened up an entirely new perspective for me, induced me to learn programming, and challenged me to be futuristic in ways that have had huge impact on my life ever since. The same with PV and LEDs, both of which could have fit the "wait" rationale. But the early adoption of each also inspired family members and others to more quickly switch to LED's and add PV, both very positive results.

    Personal satisfaction and quality of life also play a big role. Some pay big $ for an expensive home, car, truck, clothes, etc. for reasons of personal satisfaction and quality of life. That is their choice and right. My wife and I choose do spend big $ on items that promote conservation of natural resources, that promote healthy, clean and safe air, soil and water, and that provide science based environmental education for children and young adults. None of these are likely to put any $ in our pocket, but all of these and more help create a richer world and bring about change that is better for everyone. In that we find great value well worth the expense.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    WoodyIsGoody, begreen, Ashful and 2 others like this.
  21. pdf27

    pdf27
    Burning Hunk 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 14, 2012
    185
    34
    Loc:
    UK
    Which is one of the reasons why some of the questions you're posing are inherently unanswerable - it all comes down to how much satisfaction you get from particular actions, and how you are comfortable spending the budget you have. The best the rest of us can do here is provide data to make the decision as informed as possible, but ultimately there is very rarely one right or wrong answer. Which is one of the reasons I love engineering, incidentally :D
     
    begreen, woodgeek and spirilis like this.
  22. begreen

    begreen
    Mooderator 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    77,235
    12,533
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    spirilis likes this.
  23. jebatty

    jebatty
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 1, 2008
    5,685
    914
    Loc:
    Northern MN
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    spirilis likes this.
  24. jharkin

    jharkin
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Oct 21, 2009
    3,886
    1,339
    Loc:
    Holliston, MA USA
    The prototype solid state battery was profiled on the Nova Special "Search for the Super Battery' that aired last winter. Very cool stuff, in addition to lasting longer and charging faster its an order of magnitude safer than wet lithium... In the lab they demonstrated by hammering nails though a prototype... not only was there no fire, but it kept working normally!
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  25. begreen

    begreen
    Mooderator 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    77,235
    12,533
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Yes, I caught that show. The solid state battery is an impressive improvement. Toyota is very conservative regarding battery technology. To see them heading this direction is a sign that some big changes are coming for electric vehicles.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page